So there's no way in hell they can force you to reveal the location of your car, because, duh, that's testifying against yourself. (Think about it for a second. If the FBI is collecting 'the location of the car', then 'the location of the car' is clearly being used as evidence in an investigation, presumably against you, so if you're forced to tell them 'the location of the car'...)

Why is the location of your car evidence of a crime? The FBI may want to know where your car is at all times so they can arrest you if they find other evidence of a crime. Under ordinary circumstances, I do not think you have the right to refuse to obey a court order to disclose the location of your car. Whether this applies to a question by a FBI agent is a different question.

Don't worry about the Chinese launching an attack against the USA. If they think they will lose the war, they won't start one. If they think they will win the war, how will their economy survive when markets for their goods disappear and trillions of dollars of US debt they hold becomes worthless? And all the Chinese spies who steal industrial secrets in the US will be out of work. The Chinese can't afford war with the USA.

My experience was similar. I graduated high school in NY City at 16 and entered Queens College with 15 credits already completed. I lived at home, walked to school and dated a girl who also started college at 16.

Queens College at the time was tuition-free. Since I had two NY Regents scholarships (the regular merit-based one and one as the child of a deceased veteran), all my costs were covered. It was just like going to high school except for the level of academics, the feeling of having control of my life, the maturity of other students and the attitude of the professors.

By going to summer school I picked up another semester and graduated in three years. I became a teenage student at Yale Law School. I graduated from law school 40 years ago and became a member of the NY bar at age 22.

In the 40 years that has passed since law school, I have never once regretted going through school as fast as I could.

As a lawyer, I suggest you retain an attorney who has a professional duty to advise you and to keep your information confidential. Find one who specializes in intellectual property generally or in patent law specifically. (Not always the same people.)

Next you'll probably want an IBM model M keyboard emulation mode that plays a springy sound every time a key is hit.

I wish we could get the WordPerfect (DOS) 5.1 function key assignments back. Then I could buy a keyboard with the F-keys on the left where God intended them to be and the key "click" I loved on the Northgate Omnikey keyboard.

One of the judges on the panel which issued the stay and probably will hear the appeal in Arista Records v. Does 1 -1 6 is my former torts professor at Yale Law School (and later the dean), Guido Calabresi. You could not ask for a more intelligent, decent and intellectually honest judge.

Wrong justice. It was Potter Stewart, not Oliver Wendell Holmes, who said of pornography: "I know it when I see it."

From wikipedia: "To the lay public, Stewart may be best known for a quotation, or a fragment thereof, from his opinion in the obscenity case of Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964). Stewart wrote in his short concurrence that "hard-core pornography" was hard to define, but that "I know it when I see it."[9] Usually dropped from the quote is the remainder of that sentence, "and the motion picture involved in this case is not that." Justice Stewart went on to defend the movie in question against further censorship. One noted commentator opined that: "This observation summarizes Stewart's judicial philosophy: particularistic, intuitive, and pragmatic."[10] Justice Stewart later recanted this view in Miller v. California, in which he accepted that his prior view was simply untenable."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potter_Stewart

>>>"There is no password on my WAP - Anybody could have downloaded that. I just didn't bring it up during trial to make a point."

An appellate court will NOT consider evidence not presented in the trial court. In most cases, an appellate court will not consider legal arguments not made in the trial court (but there are some exceptions). If you didn't bring it up during trial, an appeal doesn't stand much chance.

This is not legal advice. See my other post in this tread for the full disclaimer.

I am a lawyer, although I generally don't handle criminal cases. This is not legal advice. You should only rely on the advice of an attorney you have retained and who has a duty to investigate the facts and law that apply to your situation.

Every criminal defense attorney will argue there is a reasonable doubt. The prisons are full of people who used this argument unsuccessfully. The most common reasons an appellate court will reverse a conviction are if there is provable jury misconduct (very rare), if the judge's instructions to the jury misinterprets the law and that likely changed the outcome, or if there is no possible way the jury could reasonably believe the evidence supports a guilty verdict.

What I learned in law school 40 years ago is that "reasonable doubt" is far from the same thing as "ironclad evidence." In theory, a jury should acquit if the evidence leaves them with a doubt based on a reason. But if the police officer testifies that you were doing 80 mph and you testify you were just doing 65, the jury can believe the police officer and convict you. A conflict in the evidence does not mean there is reasonable doubt if the jury decides the police officer is more believable than you are. They can legally discount your testimony completely.

OTOH, if you can have the radar gun tested and it over-registers by 15 mph, that could be a different story. In fact, a good judge will not let the police officer's testimony be admitted if that is the case unless the evidence shows the radar gun registered 95 mph, which means you were really doing 80.

The big deal lately is that many forensic labs have been shown deficient in their procedures in handling and testing evidence. The kind of scientific study needed to show this is far beyond the resources of almost any criminal defendant. I'm not sure if any convictions have actually be reversed yet because of this finding.

Your mention of the one-volume Columbia Encyclopedia brought back memories. In high school and in college I used to read random articles in this encyclopedia for pleasure. The articles were short but informative and usually gave references for further information. I learned a lot and never got bored.